Medicaid scam - we don't need no stinking picture ID

Who needs identification? “Medicaid, however, will still be a system that is almost too easy to abuse. The form the Russian women filled out lists religious, school and medical records as acceptable proof of identity and U.S. citizenship. No wonder the alleged scam went on for years before the FBI got wise to it.”

The story is about Russian diplomats receiving medicaid, but it shows how easy it is to scam our systems.

My liberal friends oppose any kind of really valid picture IDs being used to prove who you are. They tell us that these kinds of frauds don't happen because they find few examples of them happening. Maybe that is not because they don't happen but rather because they happen but we don't find out.

Posted by Christine & John at December 9, 2013 4:31 AM
Comments
Comment #374844


C&J, mostly J, seems the FBI didn’t catch on to the scam.

From the article: “Secondly, it was U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who spoke to the media about the Medicaid affair. Bharara was banned from entering Russia in April 2013 in retaliation for a U.S. law that forbade entry to the U.S. to a number of Russian officials suspected of corruption. Ryabkov accused prosecutors of taking revenge for “issues that have nothing to do with Russia-U.S. relations.”

Surely, were the FBI interested, it wouldn’t take nine years to get the case before a judge.
http://www.stopmedicarefraud.gov/preventfraud/scams-identity-theft/

or, be on you toes for these abuses:

http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud

Jake, why go after a few needy diplomats scaming $1.5M while daily, we have serious fraud going on:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3503464/miami-doctor-and-therapists-charged.html

Once upon a time corporations were established to serve the public good. Today, in many instances,
they serve as a venue to rip off the public wherever possible.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 8, 2013 6:10 PM
Comment #374855

How pathetic C&J that you would compare Medicare and voting and then make up such nonsense as this. You never fail to surprise me as you continue to sink lower and lower into the propaganda mire that has caught up so many conservatives.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 9, 2013 2:57 PM
Comment #374858

j2t2

I think it is a good idea for people to be able to prove their identity.

Posted by: CJ at December 9, 2013 4:50 PM
Comment #374859

I wonder what is more pathetic, expressing an opinion that one might disagree with or continually attempting to paint those that you disagree with as being less than you are, simply because they disagree with you?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 9, 2013 5:12 PM
Comment #374861

BTW, you remember all of those Medicare signups that Obamacare has directed people to (and claimed as Obamacare enrollees)? Well, seems that got some of them wrong…

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/healthcaregov-medicaid-eligibility-questions/3871113/

The federal health care exchange is incorrectly determining that some people are eligible for Medicaid when they clearly are not, leaving them with little chance to get the subsidized insurance they are entitled to as the Dec. 23 deadline for enrollment approaches.

State and industry officials haven’t quantified the problem yet, but the National Association of State Medicaid Directors may release information next week after following up on reports from around the country, says Executive Director Matt Salo.

Here’s what happens: When consumers applying for insurance put their income information into subsidy calculators on HealthCare.gov — the exchange handling insurance sales for 36 states — it tells them how much financial assistance they qualify for or that they are eligible for Medicaid. If it’s the latter, consumers aren’t able to obtain subsidies toward the insurance, although they could buy full-priced plans.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 9, 2013 5:28 PM
Comment #374866

C&J, yes a times it is. But this case with the Russians show a lack of personal responsibility on their part, they are committing fraud. This comparison of voter laws (which is what you are doing, right?)with Medicare is an apples and oranges comparison.

Medicare has such a low overhead compared to for profit insurance companies that this type of Fraud would cost as much to fix as it would to accept it.

The voter suppression laws conservatives are passing in the states is not about fraud as it is statistically nonexistent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjX2aiX3PM

I wonder what is more pathetic, expressing an opinion that one might disagree with or continually attempting to paint those that you disagree with as being less than you are, simply because they disagree with you?

Rhinehold are you referring to “My liberal friends oppose any kind of really valid picture IDs being used to prove who you are. They tell us that these kinds of frauds don’t happen because they find few examples of them happening.”?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 9, 2013 6:00 PM
Comment #374867

That you can’t see the difference between disagreeing with a ‘liberal’ position on a topic and comparing an entire group’s opinions as ‘sinking in propagandic mire’ pretty much makes my point for me, don’t you think?

BTW, as a libertarian I’m opposed to ID laws pretty much in general, but I don’t denigrate people for disagreeing with that view as being somehow participating in some sort of propagandic fraud… Instead I try to use logic, reason and facts to point out the weakness in their arguments. It’s much more effective IMO than lashing out…

Are you saying that progressives don’t say that ID fraud isn’t an issue because they can’t find large examples of it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 9, 2013 6:07 PM
Comment #374868

j2t2

I still contend that it is almost impossible for an honest voter not to have or easily get a legitimate ID. All those poor suckers are going to be on ObamaCare, where they should be required to have IDs.

Voter fraud is rare. The only thing rarer in this category is voter suppression.

Posted by: CJ at December 9, 2013 7:30 PM
Comment #374870

Rhinehold if you can’t see the liberal position isn’t as they and now you would have us believe it makes my point as well. Really Rhinehold read the statement again ” “My liberal friends oppose any kind of really valid picture IDs being used to prove who you are…..” and tell me that it isn’t propaganda.
Exaggeration and hyperbole instead of a true liberal position. Implying Liberal policy on Medicare is to blame for Russian diplomats receiving Medicaid even though ID is required. Implying it is “systems” such as voting systems that have the same problem. A subterfuge as it is conservatives in 32 states that passed the voter suppression laws despite miniscule evidence of voter fraud.

I know it happens so often it is easy to over look, this deliberate mis-framing of the argument,and I am tired of it. It is in fact part of the mire of conservative propaganda that dominates the media today. It muddies the water of reasonable and sound debate on the issue. Protect and defend it as you will but I choose to call it out.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 9, 2013 8:16 PM
Comment #374879
Exaggeration and hyperbole instead of a true liberal position.

Your shocked indignation would be a lot easier to swallow if you weren’t guilty of doing it in the past… Trust me, I’ve been called an ‘anarchist’ and ‘greedy’ here more times than I would like to count…

If this is a new leaf, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t see it as anything other than partisanship, especially considering you only mention ‘conservative propaganda that dominates the media today’ and ignore the progressive/populist propaganda that eclipses it…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2013 12:43 PM
Comment #374881

Sure you do C&J only the honest voters though right?

Here is an honest voter and what she had to do to become honest in your eyes. Imagine what those that aren’t in the spotlight have to go through. But then isn’t that the purpose of the voter suppression laws.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/21/96-year-old-dorothy-cooper-finally-gets-id-vote/


Were it not for the fact that the voter suppression laws conservatives have put into place in 32 states are all orchestrated by ALEC and based upon a flawed premise not to mention the laws include more than just ID’s I would believe you.

As for what is rarer the fact is the number of voter fraud case is .00004% of the vote, 32 voter suppression laws in 50 state is actually quite high. Neither of course is a rare as getting the truth out of a conservative.

Rhinehold, What shocked indignation are you referring to? Is this comment your idea of “Instead I try to use logic, reason and facts to point out the weakness in their arguments. It’s much more effective IMO than lashing out” Cause it seems to me you are lashing out in your defense of C&J’s propaganda.


Posted by: j2t2 at December 10, 2013 2:29 PM
Comment #374884

To Drive a car, License which is a picture ID required.
To open a bank account, picture ID needed.
To cash a check, unless depositing entire check to an established bank account, picture ID required.
Applying for Medicaid or food stamps, Picture ID required.
These are just a few examples of ID required services. Yet progressive/liberals scream about voter ID yet are silent on above examples.

Posted by: Rich KAPtan at December 10, 2013 4:17 PM
Comment #374885

j2t2, I know you are trying to be cute, but let’s get serious for a moment…

How can you be ‘upset’ about C&J’s ‘characterization’ of liberal views, and then accuse them of being for voter suppression? Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

The progressive propaganda machine has been pumping this stuff out for some time now… Voter Suppression, War on Women, Selfishness, etc. If you are going to call people on such things, shouldn’t you start with your own party or, more appropriately, yourself?

I personally don’t agree with voter ID laws, but I do not for a second have any notions that the reason behind them by most who support them is voter suppression (there are always those on both sides who are nefarious, but they are a small number of people AND they exist on all spectrums of political thought).

The goal of most is ensuring that legitimate votes are counted. You can say that voter fraud doesn’t happen, but there are cases where people have been caught AND since there is no mechanism in place to catch it except for the most egregious instances, the argument that it isn’t happening based on that defense isn’t a valid one. It may be valid to say that it isn’t happening enough to be concerned about it in your opinion, but isn’t that just it, your opinion?

I mean, here you trot out the one instance that we’ve seen over and over again of an aging woman who for whatever reason never obtained any form of ID. I wish none of us had to have ID for most things, but the reality is that 99.9% of us do. You seem to be trying to make the suggestion that since it harmed one person, it is a bad law, but if that were the case then your entire progressive agenda goes up in smoke, doesn’t it?

Both parties spend their time trying to dehumanize their opponents, it’s little wonder there is such animosity between members of each party by those who refuse to accept the points of their opponents and try to reason around them. It’s an easier score, regardless of the long term damage it does.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2013 4:22 PM
Comment #374886

BTW, more news on the Medicaid front…

The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.

The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2013 4:33 PM
Comment #374887

As bad as all ID laws are, they pale in comparison to what is coming next… Mark my words, in 10 years you will need to do this for any government program. :/

“Texas will require that architects who apply for an occupational license or are seeking to have a license renewed be fingerprinted as of January 1, 2014.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2013 4:39 PM
Comment #374890

Whooops, looks like that mask slipped a bit again. Here let me help. Why is it that you always defend conservative values of libertarianism but only give feeble defense of democratic values of libertarianism. Is it because, as I have suggested in the past, that you really are a Republican but you know that it is a mostly batshit crazy bunch of political hacks that make up the Republican party and you just can’t bring yourself to be that crazy. As I recall in the not to distant past you chided one of the crazier ones here that their beliefs were not anywhere near what a true Libertarian would consider. It is alright if that is the case as I would guess you to be a very good Republican if they weren’t so crazy right now. We need good Republicans, we do not need more crazy Republicans. Our cup runneth over where that is concerned, please no more. I would like to believe that you are Libertarian and hold the views of that party however without substantial proof in your postings that you are unbias I am unable to come to that conclusion, again. It is probably my fault as I tend to see the value in the Democratic Libertarianism thought however I am certain most of the Republicans here applaud your support of their causes (voter suppression, war on women, greed, deregulation, welfare queens, etc.). It’s just that when you get that close to the batshit crazy some of it is bound to rub off. What I would really like is for some of your Libertarian values to rub off on the crazy Republicans so that they can become valuable members of our political discourse instead of just a poor excuse for a Republican.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 10, 2013 5:16 PM
Comment #374893

j2t2

She got her ID. Voter fraud is rare, but it happens.

You mention this one person. I recall the woman who voted six times for Obama. So this one woman stole the votes of five honest voters.

Posted by: CJ at December 10, 2013 6:39 PM
Comment #374921
j2t2, I know you are trying to be cute, but let’s get serious for a moment…

No not cute Rhinehold, just trying to get you to practice what you preach, or at the least realize your criticisms of me are….. well you get the point.

How can you be ‘upset’ about C&J’s ‘characterization’ of liberal views, and then accuse them of being for voter suppression? Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Apples and oranges Rhinehold. C&J exaggerations are just that. As I have said 32 states have enacted not just voter ID laws but voter suppression laws over an almost non existent problem. The laws are based upon ALEC templates and are passed in conservative controlled state legislatures. This from those professing to be for liberty and smaller government. It’s not hypocrisy when it is factual. See the difference.

The progressive propaganda machine has been pumping this stuff out for some time now… Voter Suppression, War on Women, Selfishness, etc.

Nor is it propaganda when it is factual Rhinehold.

http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/truth-about-voter-fraud

If you are going to call people on such things, shouldn’t you start with your own party or, more appropriately, yourself?

Then what would you do Rhinehold? Have you followed your own advice when it comes to Libertarians? Is this another practice what you preach moment?

I personally don’t agree with voter ID laws, but I do not for a second have any notions that the reason behind them by most who support them is voter suppression

Ya know Rhinehold I would like to say I am surprised but I’m not. I find it disheartening that you turn a blind eye to the conservatives attack on voters despite the evidence to the contrary. That being said the fact is only some need to be doing it for the wrong reasons?.Once these purges,and ID restrictions as well as the early voting restrictions and such become law intentions are a moot point. The others simply deny, like C&J for instance.

KAP the fact remains none of these privileges you mention have anything to do with voting. For many years the system has worked just fine yet all of a sudden conservatives have made a concerted effort to curtail voting. These pretenders tell us they are for individual liberty and small government yet over a miniscule , yes .00004% of the vote they rush these voter suppression laws through conservative controlled legislatures. And you don’t see a problem with that?
BTW you keep insisting on these ID requirements yet always fail to mention that these voter ID requirements are just one of many items passed into law by these state legislatures why is that?

>blockquote>She got her ID. Voter fraud is rare, but it happens.

Yes that is my point if you bothered to read what I said C&J. The link described what she went through to vote. She made it but many others may not have the resources at her age to do so. The point is these laws serve to suppress the vote not stop voter fraud.

You mention this one person. I recall the woman who voted six times for Obama. So this one woman stole the votes of five honest voters.

And she was convicted under Ohio law prior to the voter suppression laws conservatives are trying to force through once again in Ohio, so what is your point?

http://patdollard.com/2013/05/ohio-woman-who-voted-6-times-for-obama-convicted-of-felony-voter-fraud/

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177454/ohio-gop-resurrects-voter-suppression-efforts#

http://politic365.com/2012/09/01/federal-courts-roll-back-florida-and-ohio-voter-suppression-laws/

Posted by: j2t2 at December 11, 2013 9:22 PM
Comment #374922

All those things need ID, j2. Why do you call it voter suppression if an ID is required? Why not call those other things I mentioned suppressive? Most places will give you an ID free of charge. So voter suppression is a BULLS**T excuse. Keep trying j2, when you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt needing a voter ID has caused a person to be suppressed from casting a vote then I’ll believe your BS., until then I will consider your comments about the subject nothing but liberal/progressive BULLSZ**T.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 11, 2013 10:54 PM
Comment #374923
Why do you call it voter suppression if an ID is required?

Because the reasoning for the voter ID requirements by those the crafted the template for the legislation was to keep people from voting. Remember KAP the voter ID requirement was only a part of the law in most states. It was a package deal with the intent to suppress the vote turnout of minorities, disabled and poor people.


Why not call those other things I mentioned suppressive?

Really KAP! Not one of the things you mentioned are relevant it is a smoke screen used by conservative movement leaders to fool people like yourself into believing their intentions were good, and you fell for it.


Keep trying j2, when you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt needing a voter ID has caused a person to be suppressed from casting a vote then I’ll believe your BS.,

KAP I doubt you have the cajones to admit it even if I did prove it, It would have to come from movement leaders themselves and then you would still think it was a liberal conspiracy.

That being said KAP here is the MEANS- Voter ID laws address only 1 form of voter fraud, voter impersonation (which is practically nonexistent) not the most prevalent fraud of registration drives and absentee ballots. So the need for the law is minimal. But that fact hasn’t stopped ALEC when it started this current (2008) drive to get voter ID laws passed in the states. They used the election fraud meme to justify the need for the laws. The same meme you and C&J repeat ad nauseam as it has made the rounds of the conservative propaganda machine.

Here is MOTIVE from the founder of ALEC

From PR watch.org:
“The idea does, however, fulfill the vision of ALEC’s founder, the late Paul Weyrich, who in 1980 told a group of religious fundamentalists: “I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”


Last but not least KAP is opportunity-
The voter ID laws have been around since Clinton pissed off the southern conservatives by registering minorities and increasing voter turn out KAP. They didn’t gain any traction until the election in 2010 when conservatives became the majority in many state legislatures . The effort to pass these restrictive laws started in earnest and have continued despite the legal challenges and lack of any real need to prevent the non existent voter impersonation fraud.

So there you have it KAP means motive and opportunity.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 12, 2013 1:37 AM
Comment #374926

So you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt voter ID suppresses voters j2. I don’t doubt that some who need ID can’t get to a place that issues ID’s readily but liberal/progressives like you jump at the chance to bus people to the polls to vote for your side, so why don’t you jump at the chance to take those same people to the DMV’s to get ID’s that would make even the basic necessities of life that require ID easier for them. Answer that j2.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 12, 2013 10:08 AM
Comment #374927

To some people commenting here everything is a “liberal conspiracy”. To think that every one of us liberals buses voters to the polling places is really, really strange and not at all true. And then to take that irrational step to the next place by demanding that we instead bus voters to get ID’s is comical at best. It is not our job to bus people, even though someone thinks that is what we do. It is our job to work against voter suppression where we think it is being applied. It matters not what anyone else thinks about that and there is no reason for them to deny our ability to make that point. Look if we didn’t have people like the guy in Pennsylvania that insisted that the strict voting ID requirements that were put in place by the Republican led legislature would insure that Romney would win that state in the national election (Mike Turzai (R-PA)), it might be easier for us to believe that there aren’t people out there trying to use the enactment of stricter regulations for voting that they are not doing this solely for their political gain. We don’t need to prove anything, that moron in Pennsylvania made our point for us. Deny that? Do you think Jesus was a liberal?

Posted by: Speak4all at December 12, 2013 10:21 AM
Comment #374929
So you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt voter ID suppresses voters j2.

From a shadow of a doubt to a reasonable doubt KAP! Means motive and opportunity is enough in a court of law. But not for you when it comes to a liberal truth, you need more so here it is:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/1005250/nc-republican-don-yelton-admits-voter-id-laws-intend-to-suppress-vote/

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/pennsylvania-republican-chairman-brags-about-voter-suppression-law-hurting-democrats-in-2012-video/

Three examples of your boys fessing up KAP, bring the cajones out of hiding, man up and admit you knew it all along, just as Phyllis and the others finally did ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at December 12, 2013 11:01 AM
Comment #374936
Whooops, looks like that mask slipped a bit again. Here let me help.

Oh please do, I don’t know how I would make it through the day without your inane opions about things you don’t know anything about…

Why is it that you always defend conservative values of libertarianism but only give feeble defense of democratic values of libertarianism.

Well, there are no ‘conservative values’ of libertarianism, just as there are no ‘democratic values’ of libertarianism. There are only libertarian values of libertarianism… Libertarianism is not a ‘hybrid’ political viewpoint, it is its own thing. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party actually HAVE any values, so I’m not sure how you think they reside inside the area of libertarian thought… The only thing that the two major parties have for them right now is the automatic naysaying anything the other party talks about.

Is it because, as I have suggested in the past, that you really are a Republican

I have never been nor am I now a Republican. I have been a Democrat in the past but people like you are what drove me out of the party.

Tell me, what part of Republican views do you think I support? I’ll give you a little list of my views to help get the ball started…

Pro Choice
Pro Civil Liberties
Member of the ACLU
Supporter of the EFF
Anti-War/Violence
Pro Immigration Reform (meaning allowing easier access to enter the US legally)
Anti Drug War/Prohibition
Anti Death Penalty
Pro Constitution (all of it, not just parts of it)
Pro Snowden/Manning

We can get into more detail if you want, but the reality is that you don’t really care. You just like it when I go after Conservatives and hate it when I trash Progressives. Even though, in my mind, there is very little actual difference between the two.

but you know that it is a mostly batshit crazy bunch of political hacks that make up the Republican party

And it is mostly batshit crazy political hacks that make upt he Democrat Party. I don’t know why you seem to think that the Democratic Party is above all of this…

As I recall in the not to distant past you chided one of the crazier ones here that their beliefs were not anywhere near what a true Libertarian would consider. It is alright if that is the case as I would guess you to be a very good Republican if they weren’t so crazy right now.

I don’t think I could even be accepted to the Republican party, nor would I want to be, because I disagree with almost everything they stand for. So it makes no sense to me why I would even consider it… Now if the crazies left the Democrat Party, I might return. But then progressives like you would be left looking for a place to reside, so…

We need good Republicans

You do know that if that happened, the Democrats would be losing nearly every election, right? As it is now, you can only win by making it seem that the Republicans are worse than you, most non-partisans in this country can’t stand either party. SO there is no way that you could even allow that to happen. As you saw with McCain and Romney, the Republicans tried running people who were the less crazy of their party and were vilified by people like yourself, who wanted them to run. You are so full of BS that you can’t even smell the stink of it.

I would like to believe that you are Libertarian and hold the views of that party

That may be the most idiotic thing you’ve ever stated… And trust me, pretty much everything you’ve said has been pretty batshit crazy.

It is probably my fault as I tend to see the value in the Democratic Libertarianism thought however I am certain most of the Republicans here applaud your support of their causes (voter suppression, war on women, greed, deregulation, welfare queens, etc.). It’s just that when you get that close to the batshit crazy some of it is bound to rub off. What I would really like is for some of your Libertarian values to rub off on the crazy Republicans so that they can become valuable members of our political discourse instead of just a poor excuse for a Republican.

They would have to come libertarians in order for me to support them, but that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Just as the Democrats aren’t going to return to their sensible non-authoritarian non-progressive ways. Their is little hope for any sanity in modern US politics until one side or the other realizes that making a law is in itself violence against the people and refrain from making them unless there is overwhelming need for the law to be in place and try for once to actually respect the constitution.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 1:31 PM
Comment #374937
No not cute Rhinehold, just trying to get you to practice what you preach, or at the least realize your criticisms of me are….. well you get the point.

No, I don’t actually. You are doing what you say you are against and then trying to justify it by saying that they do it too. It’s the definition of insanity…

How can you be ‘upset’ about C&J’s ‘characterization’ of liberal views, and then accuse them of being for voter suppression? Do you not see the hypocrisy here?
Apples and oranges Rhinehold.

Total and complete BS, they are the same thing.

C&J exaggerations are just that. As I have said 32 states have enacted not just voter ID laws but voter suppression laws over an almost non existent problem.

Those laws are not ‘voter suppression’ laws, except in your mind. Because a couple of people have said that the support those laws because they favor voter suppression. It’s like saying that Democrats aren’t for a national gun registry when in fact many Democratic congressmen have stated that THAT is exactly why they support gun registration laws. I don’t think Democrats are for a national gun registry, but if we were to take your methods and apply it here, Republicans would be well within their rights to say that they are, wouldn’t they?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/04/dem-congresswoman-admits-to-theblaze-she-would-vote-for-national-gun-registry-it-helps-us-find-them-for-you/

They could say that Democrats want lax immigration laws in order to get more votes.

They could say that Democrats want socialized medicine.

They could say that Democrats want a socialist society.

All because some of the people on the Democrat side have stated that they support those things for those specific reasons.

By arguing that all who support something do so because a minority have expressed that view, you are creating an atmosphere where people can villify others, not based on their views or their arguments, but the views and arguments of supporters of theirs.

It’s how both Democrats and Republicans try to claim libertarians are anarchists because some people who support libertarian views and policies do so because of their anarchist beliefs. It’s invalid and prevents any actual discussion about the merits or lack of merits of the views of all who support an idea because of the mindset of a minority who hold that view.

And that’s the reality, you don’t WANT a legitimate discussion of the topic, because that’s harder than just dehumanizing anyone who holds a specific view and putting them on the defensive. It’s the inanity that has created the atmosphere of ‘anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist’ that is both mind-numbingly stupid and bordering on evil. And just propogates hatred and animonsity between the parties.

You can’t claim you want the Republicans to stop doing something and then participate in that very same thing yourself, it makes you a hypocrite and displays that you don’t want reasoned informed debate, you want to lob accusations and hatred for partisan political gain, damned the consequences.

It’s not hypocrisy when it is factual.

Except it isn’t factual, it is your OPINION.

The progressive propaganda machine has been pumping this stuff out for some time now… Voter Suppression, War on Women, Selfishness, etc.
Nor is it propaganda when it is factual Rhinehold.

Again, as I have shown, it isn’t ‘factual’, unless you are going to allow the same threshold for ‘facts’ on the other side. I don’t think you are willing to do that or you wouldn’t have had a problem with Republicans defining the view of the Democrats, would you?

If you are going to call people on such things, shouldn’t you start with your own party or, more appropriately, yourself?
Then what would you do Rhinehold? Have you followed your own advice when it comes to Libertarians? Is this another practice what you preach moment?

I have several times, if you are going to make an accusation, back it up with some facts. You can’t so you lob this nonsense because you don’t want to debate the facts. In fact, I have posted several times here and elsewhere that I disagree with the national Liberatarian party that suggest we should have no anti-trust laws. I believe we need them to ensure that the market remain free, it cannot be free if one side or the other is able to manipulate it to their advantage. But none of that matters because you continue to prove my point, you want to throw around accusations to put your opponents on the defensive, you aren’t interested in any kind of reasoned informed debate because that’s harder…

I personally don’t agree with voter ID laws, but I do not for a second have any notions that the reason behind them by most who support them is voter suppression
Ya know Rhinehold I would like to say I am surprised but I’m not.

I am glad you aren’t suprised that I don’t participate in the character assassination and politics of personal destruction that the Republicans and Democrats are engaging in for partisan reasons. It’s a shame you don’t agree though…

I find it disheartening that you turn a blind eye to the conservatives attack on voters despite the evidence to the contrary.

I do the same with Democrats, I don’t accuse all Democrats of wanting a gun registry and/or confiscation, or being socialists, or being communists, or being for socialized medicine, etc just because some Democrats spout those views. It would be hypocritical of me to do so. Just as it is hypocritical of you to do the same.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 1:32 PM
Comment #374938

It seems funny that j2 and speak criticize a few idiot republicans about voter ID laws. Yet they don’t criticize the courts for upholding the constitutionality of those laws. It seems to me that if those laws were as suppressive as you say then the courts would be throwing them out left and right. But the only thing that is done is keeping the courts busy with appeal after appeal as in the case of the Pa. law. You say motive and opportunity is enough in a court of law. But what is your motive in not requiring ID to vote? Is it just the opposite of those idiot republicans and just let anyone vote even if they are ineligible to vote? As far as me j2, I don’t have a problem showing ID to vote. If it keeps elections on the up and up then IMO keep the laws until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 12, 2013 1:32 PM
Comment #374939

Democrats really just want single-payer socialized medicine

Democrats want to ban all handguns, period

Democrats want to allow non-citizens to vote

Democratic Party controlled by Communists”

No, wait, Democrats are Socialists”

Do you see how stupid the above is? It’s the exact same thing you are doing to Republicans… If it helps stop the stupid and dangerous practice, I’ll help anyone I can put an end to it.

You suggest that wanting a basic requirement of having a picture ID to vote is ‘suppression’, but by definition it isn’t. No one is being prevented from voting with such a law, as the Supreme Court has already stated multiple times.

You claim there is a ‘war on women’ why? Because some people don’t want to require other people to pay for a product that they use, namely birth control. No one is saying that they CAN’T get birth control, or that birth control is illegal, just that people who disagree with them shouldn’t be force to finance it for them. It’s a ‘war against women’ because some people don’t think they should get something for ‘free’.

It’s lunacy and dangerous, going down that road… Yet you blindly follow the path of least work, easy gain. Kind of like the ruling class has been doing for the past two decades, getting us in to the mess were are in now. I am not surprised, just disappointed.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 1:54 PM
Comment #374945

All political parties have some degree of any other political party as part of their make up. That you see all of them diametrically opposed to each other splains a lot. There are parts of Democratic ideas that are part of Republican ideas, there are parts of Republican ideas that are part of Democratic ideas, there are parts of Democratic ideas that are part of Libertarian ideas and there are parts of Republican ideas that are part of Libertarian ideas. That is the way I like to view political parties. This may not conform to your belief system but I am OK with that. Yes you do seem to take great relish in trashing progressive ideas as opposed to supporting conservative ideas. I don’t know why, that is my observation. You obviously have a lot more time on your hands than I do. I could say the same for other people commenting here. I do not so you will have to forgive me for being so short and without any contrition you are looking for. So sorry that I accosted your Libertarian mores but you have to admit it’s not the first time. I don’t think of you as a very good judge of my beliefs and their validity. But you know I do believe that any of us commenting here have more in common than we do have in differences, we just would like to thump our chests and say “Ours is the best”. C’est la vie.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 12, 2013 2:35 PM
Comment #374946

Take a day and sit in the parking lot of your local voting poll. Notice the licence plates of those that pull in and vote. Are they local licence plates? Are they from different districts? Are they from different states? Did they vote in the district, state their car is registered in as well as the poll you’re sitting at?

They didn’t? Prove it.
They did? Prove it.

You can’t, can you?

Posted by: Weary Willie at December 12, 2013 2:46 PM
Comment #374947
That is the way I like to view political parties.

You can view horses as being part unicorn, but that doesn’t make it so…

you do seem to take great relish in trashing progressive ideas

Progressives took over and destroyed the political party I worked hard for for decades, I wonder why I might have some animosity towards them?

You obviously have a lot more time on your hands than I do.

I am not sure why you assume that. I work a greater than full time job, am taking care of my wife who is going through over a year of chemotherapy, assist in several animal rescues in my area and help run several charities that I have started which include mentoring individuals who want to better themselves and funding aid for the poor. All of this while writing books, working on a podcast, writing music and painting…

I know how to manage my time well, something I have learned from decades of experience and I can also type really really fast. In fact, I can type faster than some people speak. That is probably why it appears that I am verbose, I can just spew my thoughts out quicker than I can say them…

we just would like to thump our chests and say “Ours is the best”.

I’ve never said that my views are ‘best’, they are just ‘best for me’. I personally feel that above all else we should respect other’s rights and not infringe upon them through the use of violence that our laws enact, ensuring an even playing field in the area of human interaction, the results being what they end up being. Other political beliefs feel that it is more important to ensure that the result of human interaction is determined as ‘fair’ and others want to ensure that they are ‘moral’.

It’s just a difference of where we place the importance. Liberty and freedom, whatever the result, is more important to me than it is to Democrats or Republicans. So Libertarianism works best for, but wouldn’t work very well for the authoritarian impulses of members of the other two parties. It’s just an example of how different we all are.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 2:50 PM
Comment #374948

Here’s a question for you j2t2… By your definition, aren’t all voter registration laws ‘voter suppression laws’? I mean, you have to actually go out and register to vote, right? Isn’t that putting a burden on someone voting?

Please explain the difference between requiring people go out to a place and register to vote and requiring people go out to a place and get an free picture ID to vote? Why is one ok and the other not?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 2:52 PM
Comment #374949

Good for you and your fast typing and greater than full time job. I am a bit of a typing type person myself. I hope your wife is doing well and you know I expressed sorrow on learning of this problem. We will hope for the best. Horses and unicorns (if the latter existed are of different species and since they don’t exist that cannot be proven). Libertarians, Democrats and Republicans are all part of the same species (at least I’d like to think so but sometimes that belief is tested). I do not need your approval to hold my beliefs. I am glad you feel that liberty and freedom are more important to you than me however misguided that might be but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. I am very sorry to hear you were upset by progressives but really cannot believe that someone with your abilities and commitment just up and said “I have had it with you guys, I am leaving”. You seem to be much more of a pragmatist then to succumb to that. Yes we are all different but we also are all quite a bit the same now aren’t we?

OK, I am not sitting in the parking lot of a polling place all day. That is how you end up on the 6 o’clock news. I have no idea what the point you were trying to make with that reference so I will not be able to comment, sorry.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 12, 2013 3:13 PM
Comment #374950

Re voter fraud - it is not common, but every election there are people convicted of voter fraud. The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore it is beyond a reasonable doubt that voter fraud occurs regularly. It is reasonable to take reasonable precautions against fraud, since every fraudulent vote cast steals a vote from an honest voter.

Re voter suppression - there is really no evidence at all that it occurs because of ID laws. My liberal friends trot out all sorts of weird examples. Maybe the 100 year old woman with a three legged dog who was sick on the day she wanted to register had trouble getting an ID. But all these stories end with the “victim” being able to get an ID.

Posted by: CJ at December 12, 2013 3:22 PM
Comment #374951

My conservative and libertarian friends trot out all kinds of weird examples of why we should require voter id. That doesn’t explain why we need to change something that has held for over 200 years. Also please try to explain then why some Republicans hold the opinion that enacting voter suppression laws will allow them to get a state to vote for Romney. I understand how misguided that assumption was (Romney lost Pennsylvania) but why do they think that way? Could it be the some are not as pure of heart as our libertarian and conservative friends here. Or could it be that we turn our blind eye to that kind of rhetoric and say oh never mind he was just saying something crazy. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 12, 2013 3:47 PM
Comment #374952

J2T2 writes; “They didn’t gain any traction until the election in 2010 when conservatives became the majority in many state legislatures.”

Liberals have been telling us for years now that elections have consequences and we must live with the liberal wishes as they hold the federal power now.

I suggest j2, that you win more state elections and then rewrite the laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2013 3:56 PM
Comment #374955

“My conservative and libertarian friends trot out all kinds of weird examples of why we should require voter id. That doesn’t explain why we need to change something that has held for over 200 years.”

The motivation is clear. Just look at who is proposing it, who it effects and when they proposed it.

That said, I would not oppose a reasonable ID law. However, I strongly object to other measures frequently packaged with the “ID” laws clearly designed to suppress votes of those more likely to vote for Democratic candidates.

Posted by: Rich at December 12, 2013 4:43 PM
Comment #374956

Rich… Like?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 4:43 PM
Comment #374958

Speaks

It has endured many years and there have been many examples of widespread voter fraud. Whole political machines were built on this. We don’t need that kind of thing anymore. Beyond that, in the past people living in smaller, less mobile communities. They were known to each other. Today, for example, I could get a meal on credit w/o showing any ID at the place were I go for lunch. It is not because they just give things away.

Re why some Republicans think voter laws might help them - I don’t know for sure. Maybe it is because they think Democrats might cheat in a close election. If you believe that is not true, you have no reason to object to ID laws.

Rich

Re ID laws - I believe strongly in the integrity of the vote. I don’t want anyone to have a vote stolen either by suppression or fraud. I find no credible examples of reasonable people prevented from voting by ID laws. I find convictions for voter fraud every election, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud happens regularly. I therefore believe that voter ID laws protect the franchise and protect our voting rights.

Posted by: CJ at December 12, 2013 5:54 PM
Comment #374966
Liberals have been telling us for years now that elections have consequences and we must live with the liberal wishes as they hold the federal power now.

The issue Royal is opportunity. Elections do have consequences and voter suppression from those espousing liberty is a result of repubs winning state legislatures.

BTW it seems we agree that the ALEC laws passed by conservatives are intend to suppress the vote. We disagree in that voter suppression laws are seemingly acceptable to you if conservatives win the elections but I find them to be reprehensible.

Re voter fraud - it is not common, but every election there are people convicted of voter fraud.

Yes but is it impersonation of voters at the ballot box? The fact is Since 2000:”In-person voter-impersonation fraud is rare. The database shows 207 cases of other types of fraud for every case of voter impersonation.”
http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/

You seem to like to bundle all the cases of voter fraud into one but the fact, once again, is Voter ID stops one type of fraud- voter impersonation at the ballot box. So it seems not only is it not common it is exceedingly rare C&J.


The standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore it is beyond a reasonable doubt that voter fraud occurs regularly. It is reasonable to take reasonable precautions against fraud, since every fraudulent vote cast steals a vote from an honest voter.

Three things C&J, one, repubs have more than made up for all the cases of voter fraud since 200 this past election alone by throwing away registrations. Why didn’t ALEC and the conservative state legislatures toughen the law in these areas?
Two, once again the type of fraud that voter ID laws prevent is impersonation which as we have consistently pointed out is not regular unless you consider once for every two hundred seven cases of other types of voter fraud.
Three, If it truly were the intentions of ALEC and conservatives to prevent voter fraud why didn’t they go after the more common types of fraud? They included suppression tactic such as ID’s, Purging of Rolls and Challenges to democratic voters in their laws. Their actions speak much louder than their words.

Reasonable doubt, I just proved means, motive and opportunity and your fellow conservatives tell me it isn’t enough why such a double standard with you guys?

If fact C&J voter suppression activities are more regular than voter impersonation fraud.
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-suppression-incidents-2008

Posted by: j2t2 at December 12, 2013 6:58 PM
Comment #374968

j2t2 seems to believe that a way has been found to keep voters from polls for state offices but not federal offices.

Perhaps j2 could share with us the reason that such voter repression has not allowed success in all states and on the national stage.

As citizens we have the right to demand that only those qualified to vote actually vote. In my county in Texas I receive a new voter registration card every two years in the mail without doing anything to prompt it expect to vote and remain in the register. I registered as a qualified voter one time years ago and that was all that was necessary. Is that different from how it works in your locality j2?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2013 7:29 PM
Comment #374969

j2t2

Your own sources show your errors. You complain about attempts to purge the rolls. Your sources indicate that the common type of fraud is to use messy rolls to vote multiple times. You say that in-person fraud is 207 times less common. Maybe so. But it happens and should be stopped. People being unable to get IDs is not only rare, it is probably essentially non-existent.

Your source also points to how fraud is more common than convictions might show, to wit:

” Minnite says prosecutions are rare. “You have to be able to show that people knew what they were doing and they knew it was wrong and they did it anyway,” she said. “It may be in the end they (prosecutors) can’t really show that the people who have cast technically illegal ballots did it on purpose.”

Felons or noncitizens sometimes register to vote or cast votes because they are confused about their eligibility. The database shows 74 cases of felons voting and 56 cases of noncitizens voting.
Voters make a lot of mistakes, from accidentally voting twice to voting in the wrong precinct.
Election officials make a lot of mistakes, from clerical errors — giving voters ballots when they’ve already voted — to election workers confused about voters’ eligibility requirements.”

Read that through a second time. It is almost impossible to convict for voter fraud, which indicates that convictions must be pretty strong cases. Now, how does anyone “accidentally” vote twice?

We get nowhere with this argument. I believe justice is best served with ID laws to protect the vote. You disagree. We will never agree, so let’s just refer to facts on the ground. I will continue to advocate for ID laws. If legislatures enact them and courts support them, I win. You do the opposite and if legislature and courts support you, you win. Either way, one of us will feel justice has been done and other will disagree.

Posted by: CJ at December 12, 2013 7:39 PM
Comment #374971
Here’s a question for you j2t2… By your definition, aren’t all voter registration laws ‘voter suppression laws’?

No Rhinehold all voter registration laws are not voter suppression laws.

It seems funny that j2 and speak criticize a few idiot republicans about voter ID laws.

What so funny KAP? A confession from 3 different conservatives that prove the intent of the ALEC laws was to suppress the vote. Call them idiots as you will KAP but at least they are honest about it. They have a bit of credibility left unlike some others who continue pretend.

Yet they don’t criticize the courts for upholding the constitutionality of those laws. It seems to me that if those laws were as suppressive as you say then the courts would be throwing them out left and right.

Really KAP! you sound as if the conservative majority on the SCOTUS aren’t political operatives as well as judges. Corruption at its finest. The same crew that struck down the voting rights act.

You say motive and opportunity is enough in a court of law.

I don’t the law does, means motive and opportunity, Which I seem to have proved yet now you change the subject to the SCOTUS and my intentions, why is that?


But what is your motive in not requiring ID to vote? Is it just the opposite of those idiot republicans and just let anyone vote even if they are ineligible to vote?

The facts don’t bar your theory out KAP. You have to believe the meme created by ALEC to think ineligible voters are voting. But the fact is voter impersonation is rare, very rare. I just everyone to vote. Not just the landed gentry. I don’t like liberty for some I prefer liberty for all.

As far as me j2, I don’t have a problem showing ID to vote. If it keeps elections on the up and up then IMO keep the laws until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

I get my ballot mailed to me KAP. I send it back in at my convenience. I am not forced to stand in long lines and show ID. Neither should anyone else have to do such. If you prefer to show ID I wouldn’t be against it being a volunteer thing but when it is used to deny someone the obligation to vote it is wrong.

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167425/alec-disbands-task-force-responsible-voter-id-stand-your-ground-laws

Posted by: j2t2 at December 12, 2013 8:08 PM
Comment #374973

I get mine mailed to me also j2. But on the inner envelope holding my ballot I do have to provide either the last 4 digits of my SSN or my drivers permit number.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 12, 2013 8:15 PM
Comment #374975
Here’s a question for you j2t2… By your definition, aren’t all voter registration laws ‘voter suppression laws’?
No Rhinehold all voter registration laws are not voter suppression laws.

Wow, you are going to have to do better than that, j2t2… *WHY* are they different? Just because you say so? I’m sorry but both require the voter to do something, in fact equally as much effort. In fact, most people register WHEN THEY GET THEIR PICTURE ID (motor vehicle license).

Tell me how, exactly, having a picture ID requirement is different than having to register?

BTW, you can also tell me why it is that ‘democratic’ voters somehow are more harmed by a voter ID law than ‘republican’ voters… That one always seems to get left out as well. Since that is the case you are making…

I don’t like liberty for some I prefer liberty for all.

Now THAT is some funny stuff there…

Are you actively working to fix:

Freedom from Prohibition laws
Freedom of Online Poker laws
Freedom of paying for healthcare without buying insurance
Freedom of right to fly laws
Freedom of charity laws
Freedom of voting if not registered to vote but legally eligible
Freedom of not wearing a seat belt
Freedom of not wearing a helmet
Freedom of putting a garden in your front yard
Freedom of choosing your own doctor
Freedom of not being put into a coma by a tazer
Freedom of self defense
Freedom of free association and movement
Freedom of speech
Freedom of press
Freedom of carrying out your daily affairs in private
etc…

I could rattle off a lot more things that the Democratic party fights daily against, liberty is not something the Democratic party believes in anymore.

In fact, I don’t think you even understand what the word means…

“Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views”

There is only one political party that actually defends liberty, and it doesn’t have a donkey or an elephant associated with it…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 9:17 PM
Comment #374976
I am very sorry to hear you were upset by progressives but really cannot believe that someone with your abilities and commitment just up and said “I have had it with you guys, I am leaving”.

Oh, I fought it until it was clear that the Democratic party was not changing their path. When the party you belong to is against a majority of what you believe, why would you think it is ok to stay in that party? What sense does that make in your world?

If the Democratic Party suddenly started spouting libertarian ‘nonsense’ and enacting their policies, would you stick around?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 12, 2013 9:21 PM
Comment #374982
Your source also points to how fraud is more common than convictions might show, to wit:…

C&J even the repubs political operatives couldn’t find allegations of voter impersonation, from the same link -
“The case has been made repeatedly by the Republican National Lawyers Association, one of whose missions is to advance “open, fair and honest elections.” It has compiled a list of 375 election fraud cases, based mostly on news reports of alleged fraud.

News21 examined the RNLA cases in the database and found only 77 were alleged fraud by voters. Of those, News21 could verify convictions or guilty pleas in only 33 cases. The database shows no RNLA cases of voter-impersonation fraud.”

Your own sources show your errors. You complain about attempts to purge the rolls. Your sources indicate that the common type of fraud is to use messy rolls to vote multiple times.

My errors C&J! The link tells us absentee voting is the most common type of fraud. Registration is next. Yet the conservatives, who try to sell us on how worried they are about the integrity of the voting system, didn’t include any fix for these types of fraud and instead focused on the most rare of voter fraud, voter impersonation.


You say that in-person fraud is 207 times less common. Maybe so. But it happens and should be stopped.

The quote you refer to is from the same link you just quoted C&J, are you questioning this comment but agreeing with the comment you just quoted? Really! How is anyone supposed to take you and other conservatives at your word?

Despite your insistence that “voting integrity” is you goal the facts just don’t bare you out. You agree with the ALEC laws these conservatives legislatures passed to combat non existent voter impersonation even though it didn’t address the more prevalent types of voter fraud such as absentee ballots and registration? Where is the integrity in that?

People being unable to get IDs is not only rare, it is probably essentially non-existent.

Once again the facts and you are at odds. You have fallen for the ALEC meme C&J hook line and sinker despite all evidence to the contrary. Sometime I wonder if it is just because conservatives believe they will gain from the disenfranchised voters, but that is not integrity so help me on this one.

From the same link you just quoted C&J-
“According to Pennsylvania’s Department of State and the Department of Transportation, as many as 758,000 people, about 9 percent of the state’s 8.2 million registered voters currently don’t have the identification that now will be required at the polling place.
Even if 90 percent of those voters got the correct identification by Nov. 6, that still could leave 75,800 voters disenfranchised.”

This is one state C&J more people without the required ID’s than voter fraud cases in the past decade nationwide. To characterize it as “probably essentially non existent” shows no concern for voting integrity at all IMHO.


Once again from the accepted source we have been using-
“Few laws regulate absentee ballots, although the News21 analysis shows this is one of the most frequent instances of fraud.”

Yet with ALEC drafted laws in hand conservatives around the country rushed voter ID laws through state legislatures. Despite the fact voter ID laws will do nothing to stop the absentee ballot fraud or anything other than the miniscule voter impersonation fraud. They insisted it was for the integrity of the voting system! They ask us to believe it was needed yet didn’t solve the absentee ballot problem what kind of incompetence is that? Then a few conservatives with some degree of integrity left told the truth and were called stupid by fellow conservatives who cling to the nonsensical “voting integrity” story whilst losing any credibility they had. But that is just my opinion backed up with the facts.


Wow, you are going to have to do better than that, j2t2…

Your question was answered Rhinehold. The other tangents you are trying to get me to go off on are side issues not really relevant to the issue.

But on the inner envelope holding my ballot I do have to provide either the last 4 digits of my SSN or my drivers permit number.

KAP, but you want others to use picture ID’s to vote? The SSN isn’t a picture ID yet it is good enough for you! Or is it just the minorities, poor and disabled that should jump through the extra hoops to vote?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 13, 2013 12:42 AM
Comment #374983
Yet the conservatives, who try to sell us on how worried they are about the integrity of the voting system, didn’t include any fix for these types of fraud and instead focused on the most rare of voter fraud, voter impersonation.

Interesting, because we were just told that part of the ALEC laws include ensuring that the voting rules are valid…

Your question was answered Rhinehold. The other tangents you are trying to get me to go off on are side issues not really relevant to the issue.

BS. a) You didn’t answer the question, you made a statement that you can’t or won’t back up. Either you don’t think it is worth the time to explain, in which case you can pretty much shove trying to convince anyone of anything OR you don’t know and are just doing what the partisan leaders of the left have told you is fact and you accept it without question.

So tell me j2t2, if you want to have ANY respectability here, you need answer the question.

WHY is requiring voter registration not suppression but voter ID laws are?

Voter registration originated in the early 19th century as a method of disenfranchisement. Many states were concerned with the growing number of foreign-born transients participating in local government, and so they developed a system of registration to ensure that these non-citizens could not vote. While this did disenfranchise transients and the foreign-born, many poor citizens were also not included on the voter rolls; they were often not home when the assessors came by, which was typically during the work-day, so they were not included. Many areas that were largely Democratic rebuffed the registration system, because most of the poor, immigrants, and other potentially disenfranchised groups tended to vote Democrat.

Near the beginning of the 20th century, other disenfranchisement issues arose, mostly concerning the ability of African-Americans to vote. Laws in the South were designed “expressly to be administered in a discriminatory fashion,” where the validity of a vote due to small mismarks, an arbitrary assessment of a voter’s “understanding,” or other minutia would be subject to the whim of an election official (112).

Between 1870 and WWI, though, most states opted to instate registration, usually to avoid the inevitable conflicts that arose between disenfranchised voters and election officials on Election Day. The Progressive Era also brought new registration developments, allowing citizens an extended window to register, which contributed significantly to the increased participation of working-class people and immigrants.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 1:04 AM
Comment #374985

j2t2

The crooks get away with fraud, in your articles, because the rolls are corrupted. That is how they know who to vote for. This is how it worked in places like Chicago, where the dead and the crazy rarely missed voting for the Democratic machine.

Re 207-1 - I am not vouching for the figure[s accuracy. I am saying only that even IF true, it does not take away from the need to protect the vote from crooks who would steal it.

We should indeed pursue fraud with absentee ballots. I am sure Democrats are very good at using this sort of fraud too.

Your figures of Pennsylvania are just a bad use of statistics. You give the estimate of the number of people w/o IDs. This may or may not be a valid number, but let’s go with it. You then extrapolate that these people intend to vote, but really don’t know how. This is not a valid assumption. Then you go further to assume that even if they try they will be unable to get IDs.

I believe it is well-nigh impossible for a serious voter to be unable to vote because of ID problems. In the worst case scenario, he/she would vote provisionally and get an ID for next time. It simply is not a factor.

Re jumping through hoops - Obamacare is requiring the poor and the disabled to go through hoops like never before. After they are done being tortured by the ObamaCare process, presumably they will have all they need for an ID. So we can thank Barack Obama for making certain that ID laws work.

Posted by: CJ at December 13, 2013 4:33 AM
Comment #374990

SSN may not be a picture ID but it can be referenced to your DMV PICTURE ID seeing how at least in my state you are required to give your SSN to obtain the id. J2. Keep trying you might score one soon.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 13, 2013 9:39 AM
Comment #374994

If the Democratic party suddenly start spouting libertarian nonsense would I stick around? I would have to say yes as I already see some of that happening. I don’t consider all libertarian or republican ideas as nonsense and would hope you understand that, even if it doesn’t really fit with the “we are all against one another” belief that you seem to hold. I think Republican ideas on fiscal responsibility are admirable when not used to bludgeon the opposition but a goal to work towards with the opposition. I think libertarian ideas about not interfering with a woman’s choice are admirable along with their ideas of legislation regarding drug laws and sentences. No matter what you or anyone else tries to tell me what I think, I still believe that we all hold more similarities than differences. It’s just that the differences are what get stuck in our collective craws. That is to be expected but not relished.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 10:56 AM
Comment #374998
I still believe that we all hold more similarities than differences. It’s just that the differences are what get stuck in our collective craws.

I’ve always said this too, but the differences can be important, particularly when it comes to using force on citizens though laws…

IMO its about respecting each other’s views and not unduly interfering with them. And standing up for people’s desires of how to run their own life against people who want to stop them, whether I agree with them or not.

I’ll use online poker as an example, I now many friends of mine who actually left the US after Black Friday so that they could continue to make a living. Others think that they have a right to use force to prevent them from engaging in that behavior. Is it right to do that? Should our government really be using force to prevent people from doing something that they want to do that only affects them and their families?

You speak of ‘libertarian views’ but there is really only one view. That is that people should be free to live their lives as they choose as long as they are not directly interfering with others to do the same. Yet, both of the big parties find areas that they think they SHOULD stop people from those things. Reason did a great video piece where they talked to people at the national Democratic convention and asked them about being ‘pro-choice’. When they said they were pro-choice, the Reason correspondent asked them about a variety of issues that delved into an individual’s personal choice and every one of them said ‘no, they shouldn’t be allowed to do x’. Some of them even admitted that they are only pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but not on ‘everything’, that would be crazy!

http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/09/05/how-pro-choice-are-democrats

BTW, do you realize how small our national budget would be if we stopped trying to tell others how to live their lives like that? If we stopped being scared of the minute chance we might die from terrorism? If we stopped being the military defense of the rest of the world? If we wouldn’t jail people for choosing to use marijuana instead of alcohol as their means of escape/enjoyment? We have so many people locked up in jail, not being productive members of society, just because of that decision, most of them black.

But for some reason, I don’t know what it is, too many people think it is ok to use force on their neighbors to stop them from doing something that is none of their business… It confounds me, really really confounds me.

Standing up for the right of people to do what you agree with is easy. Standing up for the right of people to do what you disagree with or doesn’t affect you is hard. I would rather we take the hard path, we would all be better for it in the end. That’s why I can’t sign on with the Democrats or Republicans, they think that that sort of thing is ok, putting a gun to their neighbor’s heads is somehow the right choice.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 11:45 AM
Comment #374999

I have never put a gun to anyone’s head and don’t recall seeing this happen ever. I know that it is very invigorating to refer to our laws as putting guns to heads but it really doesn’t contribute to the discussion. That won’t stop you and I don’t want to stop you but I would like to at least get an admission that you say this in a figurative manner but I don’t expect that will happen either. If we all had the same ideas it would not be a very diverse world and would probably be the most boring life that could be imagined. Yes the differences are important even though they are very hard to swallow. But swallow we must because understanding our differences and acting upon them is the job of governance, it’s a necessary evil but one we all hope produces the results that can carry us to a better place.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 12:23 PM
Comment #375000
I have never put a gun to anyone’s head and don’t recall seeing this happen ever. I know that it is very invigorating to refer to our laws as putting guns to heads but it really doesn’t contribute to the discussion.

It isn’t invigorating, Speak4all, it’s the truth. It’s a fact of what happens when a law is put into place. It authorizes the police to use deadly force against the citizens for violating that law.

I know it is hard to accept because you don’t want to think you have authorized this, but you have, those are just the facts.

I would like to at least get an admission that you say this in a figurative manner

There’s nothing FIGURATIVE about arming police to take people into custody by force. The threat of force is still force if it can be reasonably backed up.

How do you see this as ‘figurative’?

Laws are not suggestions. Laws are not guidelines. They are, quite literally, the authorization of the use of force against a citizen breaking that law. Period. Nothing figurative, nothing hyperbolic, just simple plain fact.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 1:08 PM
Comment #375003

And thank goodness for laws and the force they can exert. As I expected you like to take that analogy literally and not figuratively. But then you take the last stupid step and accuse me of authorizing this by my very existence. You are off the rails again swabbie. I did not authorize anything and please do not conflate my support of law as taking that to mean that I hold a gun to someone’s head. It’s just not true and it is your method of using hyperbole to get some goofy point across. You do not know me, you do not know what I believe in. You read words on a blog that I write as comments and that is all. Please return to the rails as quickly as possible so we may resume a rational discussion. Or not. And tell me what you have authorized from your exalted position of the grand poohbahness of libertarian sanctity? It’s getting old and worn out. You are also a part of this world and don’t get to act like you are not.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 2:10 PM
Comment #375006
And thank goodness for laws and the force they can exert.

Of course, we need laws to protect people from one another. Laws against rape, murder, theft… these things are appropriate uses of force against other citizens.

I don’t know why you think I am not a fan of laws, I am just not a fan of laws that do nothing more than force others to live as someone else wants them to.

As I expected you like to take that analogy literally and not figuratively.

It’s not an analogy and there is nothing ‘figurative’ about it. A law is the legal authorization of the use of force against the citizens of a country. Pure and simple, that is THE definition of a law.

But then you take the last stupid step and accuse me of authorizing this by my very existence.

I’m sorry, but here I thought we lived in a ‘democracy’, right? Don’t we determine what laws we have on the books? Are you telling me you don’t support the enacting of ANY laws? Are you an anarchist?

If you have supported the enacting of ANY law, including laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc, then you are supporting the use of force against other citizens. I have done it, you have done it, we all have done it because we need laws to exist. But that doesn’t mean we get to pretend it isn’t what it is.

I did not authorize anything and please do not conflate my support of law as taking that to mean that I hold a gun to someone’s head.

I never said YOU hold the gun to someone’s head, I said that you AUTHORIZED the gun to be held to someone’s head. Which you seem to think makes it better?

It’s just not true and it is your method of using hyperbole to get some goofy point across.

I’m not making a ‘goofy point’, I’m stating facts here… Tell me, what do YOU think a law is?

Please return to the rails as quickly as possible so we may resume a rational discussion.

It’s going to be hard to have a rational discussion when you acting irrationally, trying to deny the meanings of words… Perhaps I am touching a sore spot here? Do you REALLY not think that when you support a law that you aren’t authorizing the police to use force against those who violate that law? Do you really think that all of those people we have in jail today (which is the highest per capita number in the world) freely went to jail without the use of force or the threat of force being used on them to put them there?

And tell me what you have authorized from your exalted position of the grand poohbahness of libertarian sanctity?

I have supported the use of force against citizens for murder, theft, rape, fraud and other things… I’ve never, once, said that I didn’t. But I know what I’m doing when I do it, I don’t brainwash myself into thinking that a law is anything other than what it is…

You are also a part of this world and don’t get to act like you are not.

The only one acting like they are ‘above it all’ is you thinking that you aren’t destroying people’s lives with force and violence when you support a law that affects them. When you make a law against how much soda a person can buy, you are telling them that if they DO buy more soda than that or if they sell more soda than that, you will put a gun to their head and stop them from doing it anymore. Do you not understand that fact?

What kind of world do you actually live in? I’ve lived in the ghetto for years of my life, I see what that violence does to people, to communities, to societies. I see the systemic reaction that those arbitary rules made up of people like yourself that don’t accept what the results of what they are doing are real, not seeing the effects on children and families when someone in their family has their live destroyed because they bout an ounce of pot. Or were targeting by police because of the color of their skin. Or were killed by the use of a tazer because they didn’t pull over their car fast enough for the police for a mistake that the police made, etc…

You don’t get to live above the results of the decisions you make, including who you authorize the police to use violence against. I don’t expect you to accept this reality and fact as it may shatter your delusions of whatever it is you think happens when you support a law being enacted, but perhaps you will think about this sometime later on in life and see the truth for yourself…

A very small sampling:

Kelly Thomas’ father, a retired Orange County police officer, did not recognize his own son when he went watch him die at the UC Irvine Medical Center after police beat him into a coma on July 5. The officers were responding to a call about vandalized cars when they found Thomas, a homeless schizophrenic, and attempted to search him. Thomas’ father says his son may have been off his meds, which would explain why he resisted arrest. Nothing explains the gang-style murder committed by Fullerton cops.
San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputies yesterday punished an “uncooperative” motorist by Tasing him to death. After 43-year-old Allen Kephart was pulled over for allegedly running a stop sign, he got out of his car and failed to show sufficient deference to at least two deputies. He was subdued with a Taser, passed out, and died.
A Baltimore County, Maryland officer tased Ryan Meyers a total of 10 times—three times till he dropped and another seven times after that—in 2007. Meyers went into cardiac arrest and paramedics could not revive him.

Meyers, 40, suffered from bipolar disorder and had fought with his father and brother, prompting his mother to call 911. When police arrived, Meyers refused commands to drop a baseball bat, though his brother says police did not give him time to comply before tasing him.

The first discharge did not incapacitate him, nor did the second, though he did drop the bat. Meyers fell to the floor after the third shock. Police sat on him and tased him seven more times, even though he had gone rigid according to one officer’s testimony. Three other officers said he was still squirming and trying to bite.

Israel Hernandez was a promising art student at Miami Beach High School—he’d already won awards for his painting and sculpture at just 18 years old. He was killed early Tuesday morning when Miami cops caught him painting graffiti on an abandoned building, ran him down, and tasered him to death.
On May 10, 43-year old Allen Kephart died after being tased multiple times by three San Bernardino, California sheriff’s deputies during a routine traffic stop.

Kephart, a quiet and well-liked member of the tight-knit mountain community around Lake Arrowhead, allegedly ran a stop sign and became “combative” during the stop.

But local residents say this claim is wildly out of character for Kephart, who had no police record and no history of aggressive behavior or even temper.

Oh, and this is the wife of a friend of mine that encountered a TSA agent …

Sleep peacefully tonight, America. TSA agents in St. Louis have disarmed Rooster Monkburn, a cowboy sock monkey, of his two-inch toy gun after a woman tried to take the stuffed animal through airport security.

Agents said Rooster posed a threat because his tiny toy gun could be confused for a real gun.

In this “breaking story” from KING5 News in Seattle, Rooster’s accomplice (the sock monkey’s owner), Phyllis May of Redmond, Washington, says she is “appalled and shocked and embarrassed all at the same time” about the incident that happened last week:

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 3:18 PM
Comment #375008

Alrighty I can see you just want to use hyberbole and accuse me of something that you cannot possibly prove. Your continued use of I support this without telling me what you think I support is tiresome. What is it that you think I support that is holding a gun to someone’s head. You have to be specific here as I am no good at reading your mind. I support laws that protect the general public and if the use of force is necessary to carry out that protection then yes the use of force is something that I support. That being said I still do not support authorizing holding a gun to someone’s head even in that instance. The force used needs to be commensurate with the force that the resisting individual is using. I cannot imagine a case where a law enforcement officer uses the type of force I have detailed by putting a gun to someone’s head. They either shoot them or they don’t. You just like to have that picture out there because it makes you feel all libertarianly superior, SMH. And yes there are a lot of things that go wrong with law enforcement and I cannot stop that nor do I condone that. You have no idea what you are talking about when you say you have lived in a ghetto and I don’t know anything about that. You would be surprised if I were able to get the truth across to you and probably a bit shocked. I am not here to tell you the story of my life however I am here to try to understand other people and their political beliefs. You make that more difficult by trying to define me, my beliefs and my aspirations through the limited access you have had to some of the words I type here. You can do better.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 3:35 PM
Comment #375009
I cannot imagine a case where a law enforcement officer uses the type of force I have detailed by putting a gun to someone’s head. They either shoot them or they don’t.

Ok, let me try this specific instance. Let’s say you are looking to buy some marijuana because your wife is going through Chemotherapy and would like to ease her suffering, the effects of this have been proven and you have been watching your wife go through a painful procedure for over a year. A policeman notices you buying the marijuana and walks over to you, telling you to put your hands behind your back. Do you? He hasn’t pulled a gun out and put it to your head, but do you comply?

Why?

I’ll help you with the answer, if you have a different one please tell em.

You do it because you know if you don’t he WILL put that gun to your head and make you.

The knowledge that that officer has the authority to use violence, to put a gun to your head to make you comply, compels you. This is still force. If that knowledge wasn’t there, you wouldn’t likely comply, would you? If I refuse I can’t just leave and go home, can I? What would happen next?

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #375012

I would get mine from a friend well away from any law enforcement official and I do not ever look to the streets for assistance. That is one of the things I learned while residing in the ghetto that I will impart to you. It is very naive to believe that there could be any good outcome from the attempt to use an unknown person to assist you with an illegal activity. If you put yourself in that position you deserve the outcome because you know not only the illegality but also the risk. With that said, if you are describing a need why not just take a trip to Colorado? It would still be illegal for you to return to your home state with contraband however the risk could be mitigated greatly and the contact with law enforcement could be limited to how much exposure you incur. Drive the speed limit be a good citizen and try not to make yourself obvious. I totally agree with what you are saying in this instance however I do disagree that the officer would put the gun to your head. If you made the wrong move you would probably be bleeding on the ground in sort order. No I do not support bad law enforcement or procedures yes I do like the rule of law even if it does not conform to my personal requirements.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 4:01 PM
Comment #375014
I would get mine from a friend well away from any law enforcement official and I do not ever look to the streets for assistance.

You assume that just because you buy it from a ‘friend’ that you aren’t going to get caught? That’s how you deal with laws that you support but still violate? Interesting… I guess they are just for ‘the other guy’, right?

With that said, if you are describing a need why not just take a trip to Colorado?

Because no matter how much it is ‘legal’ in Colorado, it’s still not legal in Colorado, since it is against FEDERAL law. There is no place in the United States that you can legally buy marijuana without violating the federal law against it.

But seriously, that’s your answer? Ignore the question? If you get caught breaking the law, you get what you deserve? Even so, isn’t what those people who get caught get still force? My family wouldn’t be devastated, my wife who still needs care would be left to fend for herself, we would be financially ruined, I would lose my job and my insurance, she would no longer be able to get the care that she needs and most likely die, all because of a law put in place to curtail people choosing what to ingest in their own bodies for their own use…

I’m sorry Speak4all, but if you can’t accept the reality of what a law is and what it does, we are pretty much through here.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 4:20 PM
Comment #375015

BTW, one last thing. When you enforce a law, are you saying that this is done without force? Do you understand the definition of ‘enforce’?

to make (something) happen : to force or cause (something)
Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 4:25 PM
Comment #375016

Wow you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. I am a pragmatist and I get what I want in life. I am sorry you are going through this suffering with your wife. Yes the law is bad and if I were able to I would like to see those laws abolished however as a pragmatist I do not see that happening any time soon. That is right I assume I will not get caught because I use a method that mitigates the danger of me being caught. This would hold true for what ever I need in my life, legal or illegal. Yes you get what you deserve when you do something stupid, no I don’t think that limiting what someone chooses to put in their own body is something that law or government should decide but my pragmatism tells me that this will continue whether I approve or not. Well we could be through here true because I am tired of your holier than thou attitude and I don’t believe I have reciprocated that.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 4:28 PM
Comment #375017

Yikes I believe we are done here as you seem to think I have a third graders mentality and here I have been trying to treat you as somewhat of an equal.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 4:30 PM
Comment #375019

I guess George Washington was ‘holier than thou’ when he said:

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

And the same of Robert Heinlein…

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” – Robert A. Heinlein

It’s hilarious that you can’t answer direct questions, can’t defend your views or even eloquently state them in a way that makes any sort of sense and then upset with me when I call you out on it.

no I don’t think that limiting what someone chooses to put in their own body is something that law or government should decide but my pragmatism tells me that this will continue whether I approve or not.

“Well, I don’t like that law, but I’m not going to do anything to change it”. That’s the perfect attitude to have in a democratic society there…

You embody this quote from Thomas Jefferson perfectly.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

What is Libertarianism:

“Libertarianism – The radical notion that other people are not your property.”

“A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.” – L. Neil Smith

“Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it.” – definition written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service during the process of granting the Advocates for Self-Government status as a nonprofit educational organization

“Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.” — Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 5:15 PM
Comment #375020

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” – Mao Tse Tung

“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

“This year will go down in history for the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.” – Adolph Hitler

“Socialism is the phantastic younger brother of despotism, which it wants to inherit. Socialism wants to have the fullness of state force which before only existed in despotism. … However, it goes further than anything in the past because it aims at the formal destruction of the individual … who … can be used to improve communities by an expedient organ of government.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” – Goethe

“When the government’s boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.” – Gary Lloyd

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” – Barry Goldwater (1964)

“If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too.” – Somerset Maugham

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson (1781)

“It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.” – Justice Casey Percell

“If you love somebody, send a drone to flatten their house. If they still love you, they are yours forever. If not, they just hate your freedoms.” – Finn Krogstad

“I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men’s rights.” – Abraham Lincoln

“The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.” – Justice George Sutherland (1938)

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson

“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father‘s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can’t tolerate a libertarian community.” – David D. Boaz (1997)

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 5:26 PM
Comment #375022

You have no idea of what I have done to try to change laws and yet here you are pontificating something you have no knowledge of. It was my mistake to attempt to communicate with you as an equal as I can tell that you are someone who thinks they have no equal, you are better than the rest of us. That your thoughts are so pure and removed from the rest of us unwashed masses that you only come here to impart your great knowledge and then use your assumption of greatness to make yourself feel better. Oh and by the way I can tell you have never had a gun drawn on you or had to draw one on someone else. You see it comes down to what you want to do. If my objective was to kill you, you would never see the gun. If my objective was to warn you I would put a round in your knee cap to get our attention and then make my point as was necessary. You see guns as some scary way to make your point, I see them as a way to carry out brute force.

Posted by: Speak4all at December 13, 2013 5:28 PM
Comment #375025
You have no idea of what I have done to try to change laws and yet here you are pontificating something you have no knowledge of.

You are the one that said “if I were able to I would like to see those laws abolished”, why aren’t you able to? I’m just using your words, if they are failing, try to make them more clear instead of getting angry at those who misinterpret them. But if you do want to do something, supporting the party you are supporting won’t do anything.

Further, I do know you are supporting a law that violates the liberty and freedom of Americans, namely Obamacare. You do this freely and often on these pages, are we now safe to say you don’t support it? Or in THIS case it’s ok to the force of government for people’s own good? You are going to at some point actual explain what you think or feel, not just get angry that people can’t read your mind.

Oh and by the way I can tell you have never had a gun drawn on you or had to draw one on someone else.

Hmmm…

Interesting thing to say to a disabled veteran who lived in the worst part of a city to try to bring peace to those who lived there, started mentoring programs and worked with neighborhood communities to curb violence in those areas, has been the target of assassination attempts and has had his house shot at…

Perhaps your levels of ‘perception’ are not as accurate as you would like to think they are?

My goal is to try to make people think, to shake up their ingrained thought processes and reexamine what they believe and why. This is something everyone should do every day. Otherwise you never learn, you never progress, you never advance. Unfortunately you appear so set in your ways that you continually refuse to answer my pointed questions, deflect everything that is stated as some sort of a personal affront to you and bluster… All in an effort to allow yourself the momentary thought that you could possibly be wrong.

I’ve helped a large number of people out of desperate self-inflicted harmful environments, but it only works when they want to be helped. It’s the same with debating, if the other party is just so obtuse to even admit a basic fact, that the government is force and a law is the authorization of the use of that force against its citizens, then it is pretty clear that they are just going to be unwilling to move their mindset a millimeter, for any reason, period.

There is only 1 thing that the government can do that private organizations cannot. And that is use force. That’s it. There is nothing else… The point of government is the directed use of force when it is necessary.

The trick is determining when it is necessary and when it isn’t. But if we do anything but fight against it when it is used inappropriately, we are tacitly authorizing it to continue.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 6:07 PM
Comment #375039

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ― George Orwell, from 1984

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 10:30 PM
Comment #375040

An authoritarian is someone who believes people ought to be free to do what they want, as long as that coincides with what the authoritarian wants them to do. An authoritarian tries to impose his personal opinions onto others through politics and coercion.

A libertarian is someone who is willing to give other people the freedom to do things he doesn’t personally advocate for, providing they don’t violate other people’s rights. A libertarian separates his personal opinions from his politics.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 13, 2013 10:35 PM
Comment #375043
So tell me j2t2, if you want to have ANY respectability here, you need answer the question.

Rhinehold you asked a yes or no question I answered. Now it seems you have went out on so many different tangents trying to prove libertarian superiority that it would take days to respond thoughtfully. Why not a separate post?

Specific to the question - The intent of the ALEC laws was to suppress the vote by creating roadblocks and purging voter rolls. Oh hell it looks like you answered it for me……….

WHY is requiring voter registration not suppression but voter ID laws are?

“Between 1870 and WWI, though, most states opted to instate registration, usually to avoid the inevitable conflicts that arose between disenfranchised voters and election officials on Election Day. The Progressive Era also brought new registration developments, allowing citizens an extended window to register, which contributed significantly to the increased participation of working-class people and immigrants.”


In a nutshell increased participation is the opposite of suppression. With no registration law at all it would be a free for all at the polls.

Respectability! I have respectability! Now what do I do with it? I’m respected by youse guys…. oh man that and a buck will get me a cup of coffee in some places ;)


SSN may not be a picture ID but it can be referenced to your DMV PICTURE ID seeing how at least in my state you are required to give your SSN to obtain the id. J2.

You still sent it in by mail KAP what difference does the picture ID make?

Keep trying you might score one soon.

KAP with you keeping score I would need to be Rush Limbaugh to score any points, and it just isn’t worth it. Seems to me I’ve racked up a few points that you have refused to acknowledge as it is.

The crooks get away with fraud, in your articles, because the rolls are corrupted. That is how they know who to vote for.

C&J, the voter fraud most often perpetrated is the absentee ballot yet the ALEC laws did nothing about it. Why? It benefited conservatives. The ALEC laws are voter suppression laws and your defense of them is sad IMHO. It demeans conservatism when you guys use these underhanded tactics to win elections.


Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2013 11:44 AM
Comment #375047

j2, You pitch a bitch about having to show ID to vote, yet Id’s are needed to do everyday tasks in this world of ours. Why is it you bitch about that one thing yet let all others slide? “Increased participation is the opposite of suppression. With no registration law it would be a free for all at the polls.” With increased participation voter ID would stop people like that Ohio women who voted 6 times. It could have stopped her from voting 5 extra times.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 14, 2013 2:26 PM
Comment #375051

KAP because the intention of the ALEC laws conservatives rushed through the many state was to suppress the vote. The voter ID was one part of the law.

Yes everyone points to the women that voted 6 times, yet for every women that votes 2 or 6 times their are 207 cases of absentee ballot fraud. None of the ALEC laws passed by conservatives did anything to stop the absentee ballot fraud. Why do you suppose that is.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/voter-suppression-returns

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/democracy-cant-wait

Posted by: j2t2 at December 14, 2013 6:19 PM
Comment #375052

If ALEC laws do suppress votes I hope all get trashed by SCOTUS. If Absentee votes are more fraudulent then laws need to be enacted to curb that. As long as the courts uphold the voter ID laws then quit your bitchin j2.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 14, 2013 6:54 PM
Comment #375053

P.S. j2 there are things progressive/liberals do that I don’t like but there aint much I can do until election time rolls around.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 14, 2013 6:58 PM
Comment #375061
If ALEC laws do suppress votes I hope all get trashed by SCOTUS.

This seems to be quite the concession on your part KAP.

If Absentee votes are more fraudulent then laws need to be enacted to curb that.

But they weren’t. Theory is these votes favor the conservatives.


As long as the courts uphold the voter ID laws then quit your bitchin j2.

Why would I do that KAP? The SCOTUS is tilted a bit towards the far right and the theory is the voter suppression laws favor the far right wing. The courts upholding whatever their sponsors tell them to is no reason to stop bitching.


P.S. j2 there are things progressive/liberals do that I don’t like but there aint much I can do until election time rolls around.

Well the ALEC voter suppression laws will make it easier for you to get your way. Unless of course they backfire and become the rallying point for decent people everywhere.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 16, 2013 2:00 PM
Comment #375062

j2 as I said quit your bitchin, If Alec laws are that bad I’m sure you and your liberal/progressive cohorts can find a liberal/progressive judge to side with you. As long as SCOTUS upholds the laws so be it. As far as the SCOTUS tilted far right Obama may get his chance to tilt it the other way. By the way, who are the decent people you refer to? The black panthers Holder refused to investigate, the woman who voted 6 times, the dead in some cases who voted? Are those the decent people you refer to?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 16, 2013 3:02 PM
Comment #375064
By the way, who are the decent people you refer to? The black panthers Holder refused to investigate, the woman who voted 6 times, the dead in some cases who voted? Are those the decent people you refer to?

I was referring to those that are affected by the ALEC laws that choose to fight through the roadblocks and vote despite the efforts of the conservatives state legislatures and their laws designed to keep voters from the polls.


Here is an interesting investigation into voter fraud in Iowa for your perusal KAP-

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/16/iowa-republicans-2-year-investigation-finds-no-statistically-significant-evidence-of-voter-fraud/

Posted by: j2t2 at December 16, 2013 7:34 PM
Comment #375065

If that were so j2, I think we would all be affected by ALEC laws. Just because a few who either refuse to get ID or are to lazy to get one I have no compassion for. As far as statistical SIGNIFICANT evidence to voter fraud may not be great, but it does happen. It is like the people who do not have ID significantly LOW.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at December 16, 2013 9:09 PM
Post a comment